bekaybe

Here's a brief "working theory" I have as to what the Bible is. (I hope it's appropriate in this forum)

Way back when, man used to preserve what man considered important historical events via storytelling. So, if there was an event that occurred to a peoples that was "earth shattering" or "important" such that it was felt that it needed to be preserved, they'd relay the information to future generations through story telling... or, I should say through an "oral tradition"

Man still does this today. When an important event happens, like some nutbags ramming fully fueled planes in to buildings, we feel it important enough to record so that future generations can know it happened and learn from it. Obviously today, we are - on the whole - educated enough that the preferred means of recording these events is via written documentation, or even video captures.

So... at some point, some one gets tired - basically - of having to tell the tale to his youngers. He decides, "I'll just write it down. That'll save us a whole bunch of hassle. I mean, I listened to Dave tell the story of the great flood the other day, and he had a whole bunch of facts all fucked up. If I write it down correctly (subjective, of course) then I won't have to worry about Dave's mistakes."
And, so, a written tradition begins. The Bible was intended to be a history book. Furthermore, I would posit, it was intended that this book would be added to as circumstances required (that is, when an event meriting recording took place).

However, as with all things human, people realized "Hey, I can really take advantage of this for my own gain (Or my Clan's gain)" And so, gradually, people began to add "political spins" to the bible. Kind of a history with an axe to grind.

Likewise, somewhere along the way, people began to think "Hey, why not include some stories about what we think the nature of reality is" Or, what I'm trying to suggest is, the Bible is also in part intended to be a "philosophy" book of sorts.

Also likewise, it seems to me to be a "law book" or a "rules for social order" kind of book. Much like a State's Statutory law.

Surely not without it's own problems, this idea. But, it sure makes more sense to me than believing an invisible guy with superpowers decided to write a book to prove to people that he existed... or for whatever reason. I guess, I just don't understand why an all powerful, ever present God would settle on authoring a book as the means in which to reveal himself. It seems peculiar,and peculiar enough that I think questioning the motivation is quite reasonable. On the other hand, that decision would be in keeping with God's behavior throughout the course of the Bible itself, which to me is very often especially peculiar.

Thoughts?

hatsoff

Your scenario sounds reasonable enough, though not being an historian I couldn't say just how likely it is. I think the biggest question would be, were the Hebrew Scriptures kept as a single enclosed library, or were they treated with varying authority and stocked along with secular works? If the latter was the case, it would throw a wrench in your suppositions.

Johann Sin

That makes it seems that it was history-based, but from the many obvious plagiarism from other religion, it is obvious that it is not.

I see an issue here. Firstly, you made it seem that the bible is written by a single author, with an intention when writing the book. But the fact is, the bible is simply a compilation of various manuscripts that existed during the time of Constantine. There were probably some (political) intentions there during the *compilation*, but that is fundamentally different from claiming that the bible was *written* with a certain intention. Each of the authors of the manuscript could have written theirs with totally different intention, which is unrelated to the intention of the compiler.

Other than the 'sin' concept, there's simply nothing in the Bible that is original. Calling it "philosophy" is an insult to philosophy.

Same as above.

But the process of compilation of the Bible is already been well documented. Why is there a need to 'believe' anything else?

aa5874

You have missed important elements with regards to Scripture or Biblical writings, and these are the sacredness of the writings and punishment for unbelief or failure to adhere to the Scriptures as described within them. The Bible wasn't regarded simply as history, but as divine and only to be seen and diseminated by those appointed by God.

This is found in 'Against Apion', book 1 section 8, by Josephus , "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books amongst us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the tradition of the origin of mankind till his death'.

"......for during so many ages as have already passed, no-one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become more natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth to esteem these books contain Divine doctines and to persist in them, and if occasion, be willing to die for them. '

Now, if Josephus is correct, it wasn't a Jew who added the NT to those twenty-books, since no Jew could be so bold.

RareBird

<edit>

spamandham

If you read a bit about what historians are concluding, the scenario you paint does not seem plausible. Instead, the original Jewish scriptures were penned for the explicit purpose of trying to show that Judah was the new chosen nation over Israel. The authors folded in pre-existing myths to make it seem authentic. "Hey! Look at these books we found. They say we're now in charge, and you can believe it because they also include stories about Adam, Noah, and Abraham that you are already familiar with."

Later, books were added and redacted almost exclusively for political purposes (since the ruse worked so well the first time, why not repeat it over and over?).

This continued on through the New Testament, even though by then, the authors had come to believe the Jewish texts were special. Even later translations continued with attempts at decption, to include intentional new theologies invented via mistranslation in the Septuagint, the Volgate, and even the KJV.

It appears the Bible has been primarily a religio-political tool since its inception, blending in the ancient Hebrew legal system, pre-existing myths, religious traditions, songs, wisdom sayings, parables, a bit of history, and poetry, along the way.

aa5874

Eusebius seemed to be highly impressed and added at least twenty more books.

spamandham

The sin concept isn't original to the Bible either. "Sin" was the moon god in Mesopotamian theology, and was associated with those who followed the darkness (nomadic dessert dwellers who travelled by night and who's gods included the nighttime pantheon). Nighttime nomads found city dwellers to be easy targets, and so city dwellers associated them and their gods with all things considered 'bad'.

Johann Sin

I'm a moon god???

Thanks for the info.

mountainman

The Bible is a collection of two sets of literature first bound
together as a whole in the fourth century under Constantine.

Any theory as to what the bible is or is not, IMO, needs to
address this issue, that the bible has two separate components,
commonly known as "The Hebrew Bible" and the "New Testament",
individually compiled in two different eras, by two different groups
of people, for two different reasons.